Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Palonosetron versus ondansetron for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of efficacy and safety between palonosetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe tested the hypothesis that, within the margin of 15% of risk difference, palonosetron is not inferior to ondansetron in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
methodsWe conducted a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomized, controlled trial of 212 patients aged 18 to 65 years undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia in two secondary care hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either palonosetron (0.075.ßmg) or ondansetron (8.ßmg) intravenously at induction of anesthesia. Ondansetron (8.ßmg) was also administered 8 and 16.ßhours postoperatively. All anesthetic and surgical procedures were standardized. Patients were evaluated for 24.ßhours postoperatively for the occurrence of PONV.
resultsA high incidence of PONV was observed at 2...6.ßhours postoperatively, with a rate of 36.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28.2...46.3) in the palonosetron group, as compared to 43.4% (95% CI 34.4...52.9) in the ondansetron group. The risk difference (95% CI) between palonosetron and ondansetron for PONV was 0 (-10.9 to 10.9) at 0...2.ßhours, -6.6 (-19.4 to 6.5) at 2...6.ßhours, -0.9 (-11.0 to 9.2) at 6...12.ßhours, and -2.8 (-9.6 to 3.6) at 12...24.ßhours. There was no statistically significant difference between the palonosetron and ondansetron groups in the use of rescue medication (dimenhydrinate). There were no adverse events associated with the medications under study.
conclusionPalonosetron is not inferior to ondansetron in patients at risk of PONV undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, providing a good option for PONV prophylaxis, as it can be administered in a single dose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.